RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00999 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect: 1. Award of the Air Force Commendation Medal (administratively corrected). 2. Award of the Air Medal, Second Oak Leaf Cluster (administratively corrected). 3. He receive back pay for the adjustment of his date of rank (DOR) from 1 Sep 58 to 1 May 57 as an airman second class (A2C/E-3) and back pay to subsequent ranks due to the adjustment of his DOR. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was denied 16 months of E-2 pay, missed out on promotion to airman first class (E-4), and subsequent timely promotions which caused financial difficulties. Had he been promoted on time, his family could have traveled with him at government expense. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of Special Orders and his discharge certificate. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The available record reflects the applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 12 Sep 56 in the grade of basic airman (E-1). On 6 Dec 56, the applicant was promoted to the grade of airman third class (A3/C). On 1 Sep 58 (which was later changed to 1 May 57 per Special Order B-67), he was promoted to the grade of A2C and on 1 Oct 61, he was promoted to the grade of airman first class. On 1 May 67, he was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant. On 6 Aug 69, he was honorably discharged in the grade of staff sergeant. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial and states the application should be time barred. DPSOE states that during the applicant’s timeframe, promotions were made at the Major Command, unless delegated by the Major Command to the Wing, Group, or Squadron levels. HQ USAF distributed promotion quotas to the Major Commands based on projected vacancies within each Career Field Subdivision. Promotion boards selected individuals and the quotas received determined the number that could be promoted. Some career fields received more promotions than others based on vacancies and the needs of the Air Force. Basic eligibility requirements such as time in grade, skill level, and recommendations by the commander were necessary for consideration, but in no way guaranteed promotion. Further, DPSOE states that after a thorough review of the regulations in effect at the time, they were unable to locate provisions to allow for supplemental consideration based on grade data changes. However, they believe that supervisors and commanding officers at the time were in the better position to evaluate the applicant’s potential and eligibility for promotion. The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. DFAS-IN recommends denial. DFAS-IN states the application was not filed in a timely manner and they are unable to locate documents to substantiate a claim of nonpayment of entitlements based on the adjustment of the applicant’s effective date of promotion. However, should the applicant provide leave and earnings statements from the timeframe, DFAS-IN would revisit the possibility of back pay and allowances for the adjusted date of promotion. The complete DFAS-IN evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 Jan 11 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has not received a response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2010-00999 in Executive Session on 17 March 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00999: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Mar 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 26 Jul 10. Exhibit D. Letter, DFAS-IN, undated. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jan 11.